Can Enough Practice/Training COMPLETELY Overcome Ergonomics?

(I shoot the Glock 9mm well, but poorer than many other platforms. So, this is thread is about shooting well vs. better, NOT not about shooting well vs. poor.)

I once subscribed more readily to the "practice more" or "try a different technique" line of thinking. So, I invested more in Glock 9mm (time, ammo and gear), kept shooting and trying different things to improve. Now, I'm stocked completely for Glock 9mm in mags, gear and parts. I like the durable, reliable, cheap and simple complete package the Glock offers so I kept investing in the Glock 9mm (G17, G19 and G26) because I want it to work best. I've put >40k through the platform.

Then, I own the 1911 (3.5", 4" and 5"). I'm better pretty much right off. Comes right back on target. Must be the light and crisp single action trigger I thought, so I dismissed it, but kept the 1911. I kept investing in Glock 9mm.

Then, I own the XD 9mm (XD9 and XD9c). I shot it as well or better after a few hundred rounds. Comes right back on target. Ergos were great, but I thought it must be the light single action trigger. Sold it because I was so invested in Glock 9mm (and liked the complete Glock package) and did not want to start over.

Then, I own the Glock .45acp (G21sf and G30). Same story as the 1911, but now I can't credit the SA trigger. I shoot .45acp Glocks better than most guns regardless of caliber. And, it's a Glock with the same trigger system (but different ergos in the grip) than Glock 9mm guns. However, I keep investing in Glock 9mm because 9mm is cheaper to shoot meaning I can practice more to overcome my deficits (so I thought).

Then, I own the CZ 9mm (SP01 and 75c). Same story as the 1911 and I dimissed it for the same reasons. Ergos were excellent for me. Sold it because its still a novel make and extras (to tool up to my Glock 9mm standards) are pricey.

Then, I own the 92fs. Same deal as the XD minus the rounds needed. I kept investing in Glock 9mm because I don't want to start new with gear and the DA first shot is not gamer-friendly for me.

Then, I own the Sig (P239, P229 and P226). Same story as the XD minus the rounds needed. Great ergos for my hand in that my trigger finger naturally aligns with the trigger each time I grab it. But, DA first shot is not gamer-friendly for me. I've kept the Sig. But, I now begin to see a pattern of shooting other guns better than Glock 9mm.

HK (USP45c and USP40c) was a bust. Glock 40sw, too. Kahr (P9 and MK9) was okay, but not really a fair comparision because the small grip is hard to action shoot. Wheel guns don't really compare either. A Ruger was in there somewhere, maybe a few more, but none that had more than 1k downrange.

This story takes place over many years where ownership of each gun make above is not necessarily chronological one to the next. And, in terms of "better", I'm talking consistent POI around POA of tigher group with few fliers, especially in action shooting and rapid fire. Better ergos for my hand shape and size keeps coming up in guns I shoot naturally better. That's the pattern I keep wanting to think "more practice" or "better technique" can overcome in Glock 9mm. It's still not to my expectations.

I read a blog about this topic called "There are many like it but this one is mine." The author of that article explained that you can be an amazing shot with one type of firearm but can't hit the broadside of a barn with another, regardless of how similar they seem (such as XDs and Glocks). For example I am very accurate and comfortable with my Walther but I downright hate Glocks for accuracy, reliability and so on. For another shooter the opposite is probably true.

I'll repeat the same question from your previous thread which you still haven't address and which have a lot of bearing on the answer to your question:

How fast are you shooting when comparing accuracy...faster or slower than 5 rounds a second?

How accurate; 4", 6", 8" groups at 7 yards?

Putting more rounds downrange if you aren't using optimal techniques won't improve your gun control or accuracy when shooting at speed. I've shot all the guns you've mentioned and at a slower pace, you can learn to shoot any gun well.

coalman

September 26, 2012, 03:52 AM

How fast are you shooting when comparing accuracy...faster or slower than 5 rounds a second? How accurate; 4", 6", 8" groups at 7 yards?

It's less about "accuracy" and more about consistency. Any of these guns is more accurate than I am. I can crank out softball size groups at 7rds with pretty much all of them most days, and the slower I fire the more the same they all are and the smaller the group. With the Glock 9mm, it's in particular the consistency of POI around POA and the increase in flyers, both of which open up the group. I have no issues with the Glock .45. I know full well it's clearly trigger manipulation as any gun, being a tool, does what I tell it. But, I have >40k in Glock 9mm and less than 1/10 of that in some of the other platforms I shoot better. I "practice" the same with the same "technique" and shoot the other guns I've tried better with less effort (and no "warm up") than the Glock 9mm. That's becoming harder to ignore, but, given my like of the complete Glock 9mm package and how invested I am in it, I still really want the Glock 9mm to work best.

My personal experience and observations differ. Learning to play an instrument has yet to "click" with me. I worked very hard to be a better basketball and baseball player, IMO reached my potential in those sports, but still fell short of my goals. Failure can happen regardless of effort. I'm a natural at racket sports. I played tennis for a just few years and was better than I ever was at other sports. That's my personal experience and my observations support it. Physiology and skill sets differ. Ergomonics relate to this IMO.

JohnBiltz

September 26, 2012, 03:53 AM

No, it can't. Most modern stuff is pretty good ergonomically. So yes with most modern stuff you can probably overcome it with training but there has been some really bad stuff made over the years and there are reasons its not around anymore.

I think most people think ergonomics is how a gun feels in the hand. Its not, it also includes everything you need to do make it run and keep it running. I'll also say if you have a rifle and the stock is too long training is not going to overcome that. Its just going to stay too long no matter how much you train with it. Thousands of rounds of shooting is not going to substitute for a saw.

Let me post a proof: I build a rifle with 5 foot stock on it. The stock is so long I can not reach the trigger or the bolt/charging handle. You can't train that away. Its pretty much unshootable.

9mmepiphany

September 26, 2012, 05:31 AM

It's less about "accuracy" and more about consistency. Any of these guns is more accurate than I am. I can crank out softball size groups at 7rds with pretty much all of them most days, and the slower I fire the more the same they all are and the smaller the group.
OK so now we have a size ~4"

At what speed can you keep your shots in the group?

Does the G19 shoot a larger group (how much larger?) or does it just take long to do...what speed?

I actually have an idea, but don't want to even start down that path without more information.

A video clip of you shooting the G19 and the G30 would be great...from the left side please

JohnKSa

September 26, 2012, 06:08 AM

There was a time when there wasn't a large selection of firearms available and yet, even in those limited times, people were able to become not only competent, but also extremely proficient.

Could they have done better with more ergonomic guns or guns that fit them better? Almost certainly. But those willing to put in the practice time were able accomplish amazing feats with what was available.

So, practice will get you good enough, even with a gun that's not a perfect fit. And enough practice can allow you to become very good with that same gun.

But if you can get a gun that fits you better and that you shoot better, and is reasonably equal or superior in other respects to the gun you're using now, why not take advantage of the selection available today?The author of that article explained that you can be an amazing shot with one type of firearm but can't hit the broadside of a barn with another, regardless of how similar they seem (such as XDs and Glocks).I've never really observed this in practice. If a shooter is "amazing" with one type of handgun, they're at least be decent with others. Assuming, of course that the others are reasonably functional.

Doc3402

September 26, 2012, 06:48 AM

I think it would depend on what type of shooting you are talking about. If you mean a slow paced bulls-eye shoot, then sure practice can overcome almost anything. If you are talking a timed combat competition, then no, you will never become the best you can be with a gun that doesn't fit.

coalman

September 26, 2012, 11:50 AM

At what speed can you keep your shots in the group?

Does the G19 shoot a larger group (how much larger?) or does it just take long to do...what speed?

I actually have an idea, but don't want to even start down that path without more information.

A video clip of you shooting the G19 and the G30 would be great...from the left side please

Based on gaming observations, I can pull the trigger faster than many, not as fast as some. I can often clear 11 rounds in 2 seconds, give or take, with "A" hits on a single target at 7 yards. The Glock 17 is my gamer gun and highest volume 9mm shooter.

This is comparing full size guns: Glock 17, XDTac9, P226, 92FS and CZ SP01 in 9mm and the 5" 1911 and Glock 21 in .45acp. That's most apples to apples, though the observation applies to the Glock 19 vs. Glock 30 and CZ 75Bc, Glock 26 vs. XD9c, and so on. I run a 3.5# connector in my Glock 17, run Heinies on it, and have tried finger groove and inner tube grip sleeves. I reload so have run lighter loads as well.

I can fire guns with a shorter reset (e.g. Glock and 1911) slightly faster than guns with a longer reset (e.g. Sig and Beretta). I fire the Glock 17 slightly faster than the Glock 21 due to recoil recovery.

With the Glock 9mm I have consistently more flyers and pattern can be consistently less centered around POA. So, rounds 1-3 and 6-8 and 9-10 may group well, but 4-5, 7 and 11 open it up more. It's not 4" vs. 12", but it's enough to notice that I have fewer flyers and more consistent POI centered around POA with the other guns.

That's the best I'm going to be able to give you here. I'm not the post-video-of-myself-on-the-internet kinda guy. Sorry.

NG VI

September 26, 2012, 12:33 PM

CZ a novel make?

They are absolutely a name brand manufacturer out there, here to stay and not some one-off company with an odd pistol that may not be around in ten years.

They've even got a (huge) thriving cottage industry of clones and very slightly varied derivatives!

coalman

September 26, 2012, 12:44 PM

CZ a novel make?

They are absolutely a name brand manufacturer out there, here to stay and not some one-off company with an odd pistol that may not be around in ten years.

They've even got a (huge) thriving cottage industry of clones and very slightly varied derivatives!

CZ fans are awesome, and quick to the defense. I have 7-10 decent size LGS in a 60 mile radius. If I visit them in a day I'll typically see 5-6 CZs total, and half of those will usually be in the same one shop. That's novel. America is not Europe.

Local FTF and used deals remain the best deals for me, you often pay a premium for CZ extras and options are much more limited. Plus the price of the guns has spiked in my area AND we pay tax on shipped guns. They are great range guns indeed.

Thanks for the bump.

Old Dog

September 26, 2012, 01:06 PM

Coalman, good thread topic.

I'm in the camp that will offer a resounding NO! to the question.

I've been instructing firearms for many a year now (mil & LE) and aside from my own personal experience, have seen many folks struggle and never believe that it might actually be the gun ... Too many people buy something they think is cool, or that came highly recommended by whoever or just get personally invested in their new toy ... but can't achieve as high a level of proficiency with it as they might with another platform.

For me, 1911s and SIGs fit my hand and point perfectly for me. I can accomplish accuracy with these pistols over any others. CZ-75s feel great in my hand and shoot well for me. Even the oft-maligned Beretta 92FS/M-9 feels good in my hand and lets me achieve respectable accuracy.

On the other hand (so to speak), I was stuck with the H&K USP for years as a duty weapon -- horrible ergos (for me) and although I shot expert with it, I never got completely comfortable with it nor felt that level of confidence one has to have in their sidearm.

Glocks -- I tried 'em for years, convinced that the millions of fanboys couldn't be wrong. Same issues for me as with the H&K. Disclaimer -- the latest incarnation of the G-19/23 series DOES seem to fit me better than the previous versions, though I don't have enough trigger time on 'em yet.

SA XDs left me cold, though with the XDm, I'm feelin' a bit more love ...

Why handgunners can be so stubborn, I dunno ... most diehard rifleman will never stick with a rifle that they feel doesn't fit them "just right" and riflemen have been tweaking stocks to get the perfect length of pull for themselves, adjusting combs for the best cheek-weld, experimenting with actions, bolt throw, barrel length, sight/scope placement and eye relief all to get a "personalized" rifle that has the proper ergos just for themselves -- why don't more handgunners acknowledge that one size doesn't fit all? "Go get yerself a Glock, boy ..."

Sharps-shooter

September 26, 2012, 01:08 PM

From my point of view: I am going to shoot better with something i have practiced more with than i would shoot that same gun with less practice. But not necessarily as well as i would shoot a more ergonomic gun with the same amount of practice. For instance, my younger daughter has practiced pretty much exactly the same amount with two different rifles: an ar15 and a ruger 10/22. Same number of 5-shot groups from each, every time we go shooting. She has gotten a lot better with both of them than when she started; but the Ar has always been easier for her to use, because it is the more ergonomic rifle (for her; the ruger is at least as easy for me).

HDCamel

September 26, 2012, 02:15 PM

A gun with good ergos is easier to learn.
A gun with good ergos and good balance is easier still.

Enough practice CAN overcome bad/mediocre ergonomics, but the amount of practice that makes you competent with a gun that you don't like would make you a god with a gun that you do like.

Sam1911

September 26, 2012, 02:30 PM

Enough practice CAN overcome bad/mediocre ergonomics, but the amount of practice that makes you competent with a gun that you don't like would make you a god with a gun that you do like.

Certainly some truth to that. But it also points out why the initial question is unanswerable.

Put 80,000 rds downrange in a year (like some pros do) with a gun and you'll be better with that gun than with any other. Other guns will seem unnatural to your hands.

But you can't put infinite practice into all platforms and have a truly objective answer.

I think a better way of looking at it is, if you are forced (due to employment perhaps) to use a gun that is not your first choice, train and then practice like your life depends on it. You will develop a high level of proficiency. You may have developed a high-ER level of proficiency, fast-ER with some other gun, but you use what you're able and you'll find that you become very capable of wielding that weapon effectively.

You'll occasionally notice that some grand-master-class shooters do sometimes change guns, and they manage to take their skills with one and train themselves to apply those skills with another. It stands to reason that the majority of those platform shifts are in an attempt to find ergonomics which work better for them than what they originally developed those skills with. So you can do the same. Take what you have, put XX,000 rounds through it in GOOD practice, then evaluate if you think some other gun will help you develop farther. If so, make the jump and then put XX,000 rounds through that one. Then you'll know if it helped or hurt. :)

There's no correct and final answer. It's all a worthy quest for an unattainable goal.

GRIZ22

September 26, 2012, 03:23 PM

I think too much is put into how the gun "fits your hand".

I was a LE firearms instructor for nearly 30 years and still do private instruction a regular basis. During that time I have instructed people on just about every type of DA revolver and semi-auto pistol. That includes periods where only one type of handgun is authorized. A good shooter will adapt and overcome any issues with the "feel" of the gun with practice and training. That training part is very important.

I like to use a 4-10, 85 lb agent I instructed as an example. Most would consider her hands too small for anything but a J frame. She was a good shooter with a J frame, L frame, S&W 69 series, Glock, H&K, M16, or 870. If you're a good shooter you can be one with any qualit handgun.

I agree some guns "fit the hand" better but I think too much is made of this.

Certaindeaf

September 26, 2012, 03:29 PM

Shoot a revolver double action about a million plus times. All guns/triggers are pretty easy to shoot well after that.

Old Dog

September 26, 2012, 05:33 PM

A good shooter will adapt and overcome any issues with the "feel" of the gun with practice and training. Note that you said a "good shooter." Many people, even in the military and law enforcement, never become good shooters. And while the good shooter may "adapt and overcome any issues with the 'feel' of the gun with practice and training," the good shooter might be a significantly better with another handgun that suits him/her best. I related my own experience with one pistol, and I don't think I'm uncommon in that regard. I'm very experienced, and proficient with handguns, but even with "practice and training" until the cows come home, I'm never going to be as good with certain platforms.

Most would consider her hands too small for anything but a J frame.Then "most" would not understand that small hands are not necessarily a hindrance to shooting larger handguns well. I know plenty of smaller-handed females -- and some males, who can, for example, shoot full-size 1911s with amazing results. J-frames, regardless of hand size, are also not the easiest revolvers to master, particularly the lighter framed Js with hotter .38 or .357 loads.

I agree some guns "fit the hand" better but I think too much is made of this
I agree to disagree with you regarding the second portion of this statement. I believe it is a most germane factor in the discussion of acquiring above-average proficiency with a handgun, and it's not all about hand size.

Sheepdog1968

September 26, 2012, 08:02 PM

If you train frequently (and I don't just mean going to the range, I mean taking instructor run courses), I think you can work with most firearms to defend yourself. Some are a bit easier than others. Very few people operate at such a high level that the little differences will really matter.

Gato MontÚs

September 26, 2012, 09:49 PM

There was a time when there wasn't a large selection of firearms available and yet, even in those limited times, people were able to become not only competent, but also extremely proficient.

Of course in those times most utilized a revolver, and the nice thing about revolvers is the ability to swap out different sized grips, of which there were by means no shortage of.

I didn't answer the poll because I honestly don't know. Some can put 80,000 rounds down range in a single year; I cannot. Some day, but not right now. Because of this I simply cannot afford to overcome something that may be overcome-able, and instead have to find something that works better for me.

I had trouble with the Glock 19 as well; seemed no matter how hard I'd try I'd send a good portion of those projectiles left. I have small fat hands, and I have no doubt that I was milking the grip, but I couldn't find a good compromise between a high strong hold and mitigating the trigger pull distance, so I sold and moved on. M&Ps, Rugers and Walthers serve me just fine, and I guarantee you that I was just as well set up around the 19 as you when I finally said goodbye.

I do find it a tad odd that the 19 gives you trouble but the larger Glocks do not. Part of it could be you're so fixated on your trouble with the 19 that every time you go to shoot it you tense up, throwing your shots.

beatledog7

September 27, 2012, 12:17 AM

I look at the question this way: there's not a thing ergonomically efficient about a baseball bat or a golf club. Neither is optimized for the human hand at all; they're basically round handles with maybe some sort of grip enhancer. Yet people learn to use them and even achieve greatness with them.

BCRider

September 27, 2012, 03:01 AM

So... let's see if we have this straight. You went with a Glock and even with more than 40K of rounds thru it you admit that you can shoot better with other guns with far less trigger time on them. In fact almost from the moment you pick them up it seems from your story.

Yet despite all the evidence that your body is more in tune with these other platforms you insist on building up and continuing with your Glock commitment?

All I can say is that you've drank so deeply from the Glockade jug that you should be wearing SCUBA gear in order to breath.

If a carpenter picks up a hammer which has a too big, too small or oddly bent handle he doesn't try to keep using it to drive nails despite missing and bending them if there is a better hammer around which works better. The gun is a TOOL. Simple as that.

If you find you can do better with a different brand of tool and that performance matters to you then you'd be crazy to avoid switching simply because of some reputation or expectation for the first tool which never worked out for you.

GRIZ22

September 27, 2012, 05:53 AM

EOld Dog, one point I failed to make is with proper instruction a poor or mediocre shooter can achieve an acceptable degree of performance. They also adapt and overcome. Yes, there are ideals but if you're forced to carry one particular handgun you can be about as good.

I didn't like the Glock when I first shot one back in 85 or 86 but over 10 years later when I had to carry one I learned to like it.

While we agree to disagree on this issue, I agree with you I never did like any H&K handgun except the H&K4. I can shoot them well but just don't like them.

Doc3402

September 27, 2012, 05:55 AM

I love the baseball bat analogy. People that manage to use them to do what they are intended to do achieve greatness if they manage to hit what they want to hit 1/3 of the time. They can miss 2/3 of the time and still stay in the game. They can get away with a hit nowhere near where they wanted it to go, and as long as they can run fast, they're safe.

Ehtereon11B

September 27, 2012, 05:58 AM

While I see the "train with it until you are good with it" stance of this discussion it is not where I stand. If you go to a range and rent a firearm, any firearm, and test it out but can't shoot very well with it. You aren't going to look down at the gun and say "Well I should buy it to practice with it until I get better." If you are shooting a rental/loaner/gun other than yours and are terrible it is not going to be much incentive to get your own.

Now on the other hand if you can shoot a rental etc that is accurate you will have a good impression with that firearm and will WANT to practice with it. With the amount of weapons available to everyone, we can afford to be picky and buy what we like. You need a weapon that works with you, not something you have to work at to like.

Important caveat to my rant. Training is the crux to weapon ownership. In order to be proficient you have to practice. Marksmanship is a perishable skill.

coalman

September 27, 2012, 12:14 PM

If you train frequently (and I don't just mean going to the range, I mean taking instructor run courses), I think you can work with most firearms to defend yourself. Some are a bit easier than others. Very few people operate at such a high level that the little differences will really matter.

I notice. That's the point. I put >40k through Glock 9mm then pick up something else and shoot as well or better almost right away. I know the >40k in the Glock has helped make that possible (i.e. general skills learned), but I should shoot the platform with >40k better than the one I just picked up IMO. That's also the point.

I look at the question this way: there's not a thing ergonomically efficient about a baseball bat or a golf club. Neither is optimized for the human hand at all; they're basically round handles with maybe some sort of grip enhancer. Yet people learn to use then and even achieve greatness with them.
But, not all the greats use the same bat. And, many, many more fail in that goal alltogether.

So... let's see if we have this straight. You went with a Glock and even with more than 40K of rounds thru it you admit that you can shoot better with other guns with far less trigger time on them. In fact almost from the moment you pick them up it seems from your story.

Yet despite all the evidence that your body is more in tune with these other platforms you insist on building up and continuing with your Glock commitment?

All I can say is that you've drank so deeply from the Glockade jug that you should be wearing SCUBA gear in order to breath.

If a carpenter picks up a hammer which has a too big, too small or oddly bent handle he doesn't try to keep using it to drive nails despite missing and bending them if there is a better hammer around which works better. The gun is a TOOL. Simple as that.

If you find you can do better with a different brand of tool and that performance matters to you then you'd be crazy to avoid switching simply because of some reputation or expectation for the first tool which never worked out for you.
Umm, yes. Much comment in this poll would support the "you need more practice" or "you need more/better training". Many simply think training/practice can COMPLETELY overcome gun ergos and fit. Hands are different in size, shape, joint flex points, sympathetic action of fingers, etc. The "train/practice more/better" camp says none of this matters. I was in that camp. Over time, I end up with lots of mags, gear, parts and accessories for the Glock 9mm. Then, I'm invested, so I want it to work even more. But, the evidence to the contrary builds up the more different platforms I try.

While I see the "train with it until you are good with it" stance of this discussion it is not where I stand. If you go to a range and rent a firearm, any firearm, and test it out but can't shoot very well with it. You aren't going to look down at the gun and say "Well I should buy it to practice with it until I get better." If you are shooting a rental/loaner/gun other than yours and are terrible it is not going to be much incentive to get your own.

Now on the other hand if you can shoot a rental etc that is accurate you will have a good impression with that firearm and will WANT to practice with it. With the amount of weapons available to everyone, we can afford to be picky and buy what we like. You need a weapon that works with you, not something you have to work at to like.
Starting out, if all the current poly guns existed I don't know I'd have gone Glock. And, yes, I know that says a lot. However, each of the main current poly offerings has things I don't like (e.g. XD grip safety and pinned extractor; S&W rubber insert, pinned extractor and extra parts for mag disconnect (disabled or not); CZ and Sig poly guns are unimpressive IMO; Caracals are still (maybe) up-n-coming, Steyr has not caught on here, etc.). The utilitarian simplicity of the Glock design has always appealed to me and it helped when I was tooling up that the gun, parts, mags and accessories are cheaper than most. And, Glock is "SSP" class in gaming.

I do find it a tad odd that the 19 gives you trouble but the larger Glocks do not. Part of it could be you're so fixated on your trouble with the 19 that every time you go to shoot it you tense up, throwing your shots.
It's the Glock 17, 19 and 26. And, I can't possibly fixate consistenly over 15+ years and >40k rounds. Yes, I know it's me. The gun does what I tell it. The point is I (meaning me, not the gun) don't throw shots the same with other guns. That is speaking more loudly to me more as time goes by.

Thanks all for the comments.

Certaindeaf

September 27, 2012, 12:22 PM

Get a Hi-Power.. you don't even need sights. lolz

Ankeny

September 27, 2012, 01:26 PM

I was going to stay out of this because I have discussed the point to death and it seems like folks have their mind made up one way or the other.
COMPLETELY Overcome Ergonomics
I think the operative word is "completely". Suppose I were a Grandmaster USPSA shooter with a classifier average of 97%. Could I switch platforms and divisions and still make GM in a new division? Of course. But, could I pick up a pistol that fit so poorly (the worst gun ergonomically that I can find) that has voids between my hands and the grip panels, a poor grip angle, hard to operate controls, etc., and still make GM? :confused:

BCRider

September 27, 2012, 02:27 PM

Well, you seem from your comments that you're willing to analyze the situation. But due to the investment you've made you seem reluctant to really decide to dump the Glock and seem to be hoping that we'll tell you that you just need to practice more. That sound about right?

I'd suggest that if you can pick up another platform and shoot it as well or better within a mag or two compared to guns which you have laboured with for many years and more than 40K rounds then the verdict is already in and you simply don't want to face the music.

It comes down to how badly do you want to improve in the standings in your matches?

Keep in mind that doing well in matches is not only about how accurately you can shoot your gun. Time is the other big, and maybe the BIGGER, player in most handgun competitions. It comes down to how fast and consistently you can obtain a stable and supportive grip on your gun along with how well and naturally for you that the sights align with the target in your hands and how fast you can take the shots while achieving an ACCEPTABLE level of accuracy.

I've got an idea for you to try. If you have holsters you can use for each that are suitable for competition use then work from a holster draw. Othewise rig up some form of holder for the guns that sits on a bench in front of you that mimics the grip presenation of a holster. Set up a shot timer and rig up three targets at typical match distances. With a random beep from the timer get a grip on the gun and rip off double taps on all three targets. Then score the results using normal rules for the event. Note the raw time along with the scores. The raw times will be an indicator of how easily and naturally the gun fits and sights in. Using the shot timer you can even record the split times for each of the 6 shots for study. Especially that all important draw, present, sight and shoot first shot. And to some extent how easily you find it to be for double taps with the recoil for each. Repeat for 4 or 5 passes of this drill. Toss out the slowest pass and average the rest so you're looking at overall best consistency.

If some other gun lets you clearly score higher then it's a slam dunk decision in my books. And if you only match the Glock time and score then it would seem like you can soon surpass your Glock performance with a little practice.

After all, with 40K and more down the pipe you're as good as you're going to get with the Glock. The only way to get better would be to shoot nothing at all for handguns BUT the Glock so that you gain that last little bit. And at this point it will ONLY BE a little bit.

So you'd take a bath by selling all the Glock stuff? I suppose. I guess you have to decide on how badly you want to win or at least move up a few spots on the results. But it sure sounds like you've "hit the wall" results wise with the Glock.

A shooting buddy of mine went through this a while back. He shoots in IPSC Production. He did his first couple of seasons using his beloved Sig P226's. Yep, he's got two. One blued and the other stainless. Loves them to hell and back. But he hit a brick wall and stalled at around the 80% score for a while. He then decided to try using his CZ Shadow for a couple of fun matches. He did so well with that gun right away against the same group of competitors that he made the decision to set aside the Sigs and only shoot his CZ for a while. He quickly climbed up the results to where he's now regularly winning or at least placing in the top three. Could this be your story?

Ankeny

September 27, 2012, 03:31 PM

I too have hit a wall and switched guns (even shot borrowed guns) and saw a temporary improvement. In my case, it had nothing to do with the gun.

falnovice

September 27, 2012, 06:26 PM

Damn. Hit the wrong button. Thanks iPhone.
It is my experience that training can overcome a lot ergo issues AT THE RANGE, but it can't truly fix the problems. I would question how well these "fixes" work in fight or flight situations. While I do fully believe we default to the level of our training in real world situations I have to say I believe people underestimate how much adrenaline will change their shooting.
This is where the issue of ergos will come into play.

From my own life, I had a bad hand injury a few years ago. Gratefully I fully recovered but for a time I was one handing it. This opened my eyes about the ergos of a lot of my guns. Now it is absolutely a requirement that my carry pieces have not only good overall ergos but good one-hand pointability. This is where I returned to 1911's and BHPs simply because both of these designs point so naturally and shoot well single handed.
I look at it like this; almost everyone can be taught to shoot a modern handgun competently with two hands on the range. Rapidly and accurately shooting a gun with one hand is a whole other ball game. And even without injury I believe the odds of shooting with only one hand is much higher than people think.
Mix in some fear and having a deathgrip on the gun.

The downside of my philosophy, at least when it comes to dealing with new shooters, is that there really isn't any shortcuts. A shooter needs to build the fudamentals before even knowing what works best for them, but they need to not buy into any marketing kool-aid during this process. (I can recall a lot of people trying like hell to make the USP work for them "cause it's the best".)
Finally, they need to get some good trigger time on different guns. And possibly, maybe, be willing to accept that the "Glock Perfection" may not be the best gun for them, or HK or whatever they have their heart set on.
I feel after reliability that ergos and pointability for the individual shooter is far more important than things like bore axis, trigger reset and all sorts of the other things we all like to talk about constantly on the net. :D

Now half of my philosophy goes out the window when we start talking about gun games because there you have different philosophies. Long term high round count durability, large capacity mags, aftermarket suport and so forth.

Sent from my iPhone

coalman

September 28, 2012, 12:23 PM

I think the operative word is "completely".
This is correct. That's why it's in capitals. It's not about poor vs. well, which is what many here seem to gravitate towards in comments. I shoot Glock 9mms well, better than most from my observation. It's about well vs. better. I consistently shoot other guns as well or better with less practice or "warm up" (e.g. fewer flyers and better POI center around POA). It's not huge, but I notice.

Well, you seem from your comments that you're willing to analyze the situation. But due to the investment you've made you seem reluctant to really decide to dump the Glock and seem to be hoping that we'll tell you that you just need to practice more. That sound about right?
Hardly looking to be told what to do. I'm too old for that. However, I've been in the "more/better practice/training" fixes anything camp since I've been a shooter, as are the nearly 50% that selected to the "practice COMPLETELY trumps ergos" response. So, I stuck with Glock 9mm and kept practicing. But, I'm becoming convinced through personal experience that (1) I must not skilled enough a shooter that gun ergos don't matter, or (2) regardless of skill ergos may always play a part in that last "10%" (or whatever % advantage).

I'd suggest that if you can pick up another platform and shoot it as well or better within a mag or two compared to guns which you have laboured with for many years and more than 40K rounds then the verdict is already in and you simply don't want to face the music.
I don't want to start over; that song (using the music metaphor) sucks indeed. It comes down I guess to how bad I want a last bit of personal improvement. Honestly, I expected less support for ergos may always matter regardless of practice/training in the poll. So, that's been valuable.

Doc3402

September 28, 2012, 03:54 PM

Coalman, If you ever get lucky enough to stumble across the right ergo setup you will know it. It's almost a religious experience. When the gun fits you can hit anything in any light. If you can see it you can hit it if it's within reasonable range.

That was what my old S&W Mod 19-2 with Mustang grips was like. PPC scores of of 98 or better day in day out for years and not one single shot fired single action. I didn't need to. I flat out couldn't miss with that gun.

*sigh* I miss that gun. Like a fool I thought it was me so I sold it when I went back to school. I thought I could just buy another one when I could afford it. I found out the hard way it wasn't just me. *heavier sigh*

danweasel

September 28, 2012, 06:33 PM

I had an FNP-40. Never could get a really good group. Shot the absolute hell out of it too. Bought an XD-40. Started shooting good groups almost right away. Went back to the FN. Same as before.

So no, I say no.

jad0110

September 29, 2012, 05:20 PM

There is no maybe, but I voted "no". My wife's hands are so small she can't reach the trigger on most guns, so no amount of practice would ever help.

Then "most" would not understand that small hands are not necessarily a hindrance to shooting larger handguns well. I know plenty of smaller-handed females -- and some males, who can, for example, shoot full-size 1911s with amazing results.

The 1911 platform also has about the shortest trigger reach of all full-sized handguns. It's much shorter than the comparatively smaller Sig P232 and Walther PP(K). My wife can just barely reach the 1911 trigger, and to do it she can't hold the gun in the webbing of her thumb (she has to put the grip frame more into the 1st joint of the thumb to reach the trigger).

She owns three handguns. She can just reach the trigger on her Ruger SR-22 in SA mode, she can comfortably reach it on her Colt 1903 and she has no problem with her Colt 1908. Other than those guns, most just don't work. She picked up a Glock at a gun show and the tip of her trigger finger didn't even reach the trigger! Yes, her hands are amazingly small, the are only a little bigger than my 5 year old son's hands, and he is only average size for his age.

MCgunner

September 29, 2012, 07:05 PM

I shoot my Kel Tec and my KP90DC Ruger best of all my autos, but I can adapt to about anything. I can pick up a Glock and it doesn't fall out of my hand. :rolleyes: I can do good work with it and if I shoot it a lot as I have those two pistols I own, I'll get just as good with it. I shoot a LOT of variety, single action revolvers and cap and ball are a passion and I love my .357s and my little .38 snubs.

But, whatever gives YOU confidence. Confidence is important. If it's in your mind that you can't shoot a Glock because of its feel, then you probably won't shoot it well.

Point shooting is more dependent upon ergos than sights, but I can point shoot a LOT of various firearms just fine for self defense. I practice a LOT and I never spent money on a course other than an NRA instructor certification I took. I have shot a lot of competition, though.

BCRider

October 1, 2012, 07:45 PM

I don't want to start over; that song (using the music metaphor) sucks indeed. It comes down I guess to how bad I want a last bit of personal improvement. Honestly, I expected less support for ergos may always matter regardless of practice/training in the poll. So, that's been valuable.

I can certainly appreciate that you're not looking to be told to buy this or that. And I can certainly understand not wanting to sell off a package that you've invested in unless you have very good reasons.

As you say though, in the end it'll come down to how badly you want that last 10, 15 or whatever % of difference.

I've got a buddy up this way that shoots a CZ Shadow. Simply loves the gun to bits and back. But he's got short fingers on a medium size hand. He tells me that he had to face and accept the fact that he can't shoot the CZ in double action for the first shot worth crap. So he simply accepted that and shoots it in SA starting from a holster draw with the safety engaged the same as a 1911 or similar SA only gun. It bumps him up to ESP in IDPA and if he shot in IPSC it would obviously push him into Standard. But he's OK with all this and just carries on. He's SORT of in the same boat as you in that he's limited in which class he can shoot his gun within. Mind you the gun in SA fits and works for him all too well. So perhaps it's not QUITE the same.

Anyway, whatever you decide all the best of luck with staying or converting. And hopefully you didn't find my replies too rough. At first glance I though perhaps you had just drank too deeply from the Glockaide pitcher and were looking for us to justify your choices for you :D But as your followup replies were posted I began to understand why you were asking and appreciate your reluctance to switch after making such a big investment in the guns and related gear. And you're certainly right to want to examine ALL the options since that does represent a considerable investment.

If you decide to stick it out with the Glocks then great. But like my buddy with his Shadow you may need to accept how you and your Glocks get along. Like I said, I strongly suspect that at over 40K of rounds downrange the "relationship" between you and your Glocks is about as good as it's going to get. Another 40K isn't likely to make a whole heap of difference.

If you do elect to switch over then all the best with it and I hope you trip over some deals to take away some of the financial sting. Just don't accept that one brand or other is not that obtainable due to the choice of the local shops in what they handle. With mail and internet shopping anything sold in the US is about as common as any other. Or at least common enough that some perception of rarity simply isn't really that valid. Hell, up this way CZ is so common that the local IPSC clubs have all but re-named the IPSC Production class as the "Shadow one design class" other than on official documents.... :D

9mmepiphany

October 1, 2012, 08:27 PM

I agree with BCRider, it's not going to get better after the next 40k rounds...so it is decision time.

I have a client/friend is is going through a similar situation. He believes in having 3 of which ever platform he settles on and his logic is flawless.

He learned on a SIG 226 9mm and was becoming quite competent, but needed something smaller for CCW. He sold the 226s and bought 2 H&K P2000s (both FS and compact), he is getting pretty good with the light LEM trigger, but the cost of the platform, makes getting a third a sticking point.

He recently started exploring the G19 platform, but became a victim of their "casing in face" issue, which the first return to the factory didn't seem to fix.

He is now considering going the M&P9 route...with the readily available Apex Tactical parts to address any issues which might come up.

The point is that he isn't emotionally attached to any platform and is willing to change the route he travels to address his SD/competition needs

doubleh

October 1, 2012, 08:28 PM

I don't believe in the old adage that practice makes perfect. Practice will certainly make you better. When everything about what you are practicing with fits you will be better than with something that doesn't fit as well.

BullfrogKen

October 1, 2012, 08:36 PM

I'm on the same page as Sam1911 on the matter.

A gun that fits someone's hands will be easier to work, and quicker to master, than one that doesn't fit as well. I see a whole lot of people who try to make a gun work, struggle through it, and eventually get to a point where they do "OK". Had they made their choice - if they were able to make a choice - with proper gun fit as the priority above all else, such as capacity or caliber, they wouldn't struggle so much.

Can you train through it? Probably. But sometimes, no.

In the end, unless you have no choice in your handgun, why try to force it?

By the way, if you want to allow my colleague 9mmE' to evaluate your shooting, you can upload a video to youtube that is viewed by invitation only. Just a thought.

mljdeckard

October 1, 2012, 08:52 PM

I think if you are THAT invested into a single gun, you should stick with it. I like to think I am global enough to pick up just about any gun, do a quick feel to learn where the controls are, and go with it if I had to.

VAPOPO

October 1, 2012, 08:58 PM

Yes it can go slow and concentrate on the basics of trigger pull, grip , sight picture and as you build muscle memory you will pick up speed. I had to slow down quite a bit when transitioning from a Beretta, SIG, or 1911 to a glock. The transition back doesnt take as much time because of the familiar grip angle. I always advise new Glock shooters to concentrate on shooting "Only" their Glock untill it feels right then go back to shooting everything else.

BSA1

October 2, 2012, 11:34 AM

The basics of shooting never change.

Top shooters will always remain the best.

Very good shooters will also remain very good.

Good shooters probably are the affected. It depends on how much money and time they have available to practice to really learn the weapon.

Doc3402

October 2, 2012, 12:07 PM

Yes it can go slow and concentrate on the basics of trigger pull, grip , sight picture and as you build muscle memory you will pick up speed. I had to slow down quite a bit when transitioning from a Beretta, SIG, or 1911 to a glock. The transition back doesnt take as much time because of the familiar grip angle. I always advise new Glock shooters to concentrate on shooting "Only" their Glock untill it feels right then go back to shooting everything else.
On the Glock thing, that took one magazine in my case. It was a remarkable improvement right out of the box, but it only happens with the sub-compacts. At 25 yards I had 10 holes in a group the size of a medicine bottle cap, and it covered the "X".

The only other gun I have ever done better with is my first true love, my first S&W Mod 19. I can't do it with an XD 40 SC, I can come close with my 66-2, and my 1911 is halfway between the two of those. I'm not even going to discuss my J frames.

bassdogs

October 2, 2012, 02:28 PM

Also agree with BD Rider. Not sure if there has ever been another shooter who has purchased multi versions of the same brand gun and invested 40,000 rounds who was still asking this question. Why don't you cut your losses and just go with the 1911 platform? That's what seems to work best for you so why continue to fight to find another answer? Some people will swear by a Ford, Gm or whatever and will always always find a reason to find best attributes from their preferred brand time and time again.

The other point is that this all seems to be about a very great group over a really good group. Unless you are a bulls eye shooter, its all about reliable hits in the critical mass. I am not a bulls eye shooter and have been advised by mentors to focus on CM hits at ranges from 3 to 7 yards with increasingly fast trigger pulls since that is what is important in SD shooting. Use what is comfortable and what you like. Don't try to force X to work as well as Y if Y is what you do best with.

doc2rn

October 2, 2012, 03:00 PM

Coalman, I know your pain. When I first graduated I bought a glock 32, and thought I like the ergos. Same as my Ruger Standard I have had since I was 11. The sad fact is I spent a lot of time and $$ trying to make it work for me, but the moment I picked up an FNP-9 was like a choir of angels. It sang to me, and was way more accurate than I ever was with the 32. Now I know some say your comparing apples n oranges, but the experience was the same. Sometimes it just pays to move on.

FMF Doc

October 2, 2012, 10:12 PM

I attened an Advanced Combat Pistol course taught by a salty old Senior Cheif from the SEAL teams. I went there with another corpsman and couple of 1st Force Recon Marines. The course used the SEAL's MK 25 (aka: Sig 226 in 9mm). A couple of the Recon guys complained that the sig didn't feel as good as their custom 1911's they were accustomed to. The Senior walked right up and siad: "If you don't like the way it feels, shoot it until you do." After 10 days and 40K rounds a piece, we were all shooting the sigs like they were laserguns, cutting soup can size holes out of targets at up to 35 yds. If you get ENOUGH practice, you can learn to shoot anything, the very best do, just ask the SEALs.

Certaindeaf

October 2, 2012, 11:04 PM

I attened an Advanced Combat Pistol course taught by a salty old Senior Cheif from the SEAL teams. I went there with another corpsman and couple of 1st Force Recon Marines. The course used the SEAL's MK 25 (aka: Sig 226 in 9mm). A couple of the Recon guys complained that the sig didn't feel as good as their custom 1911's they were accustomed to. The Senior walked right up and siad: "If you don't like the way it feels, shoot it until you do." After 10 days and 40K rounds a piece, we were all shooting the sigs like they were laserguns, cutting soup can size holes out of targets at up to 35 yds. If you get ENOUGH practice, you can learn to shoot anything, the very best do, just ask the SEALs.
40,000 rounds per in ten days is a fair pile. How much did this class cost?

Did you get to use their pistols? Those pistols were about wore out in that time.. a write-off.

Old Dog

October 2, 2012, 11:12 PM

Uh, yeah -- 40,000 rounds in 10 days? This was a commercial course? If you're gonna say this was military training, I'm gonna ask what, where and when ... 4,000 PISTOL ROUNDS PER PERSON PER DAY? 'Cause I never got to shoot more'n 500 pistol rounds a day ...

FMF Doc

October 2, 2012, 11:25 PM

It was military training. Fort Picket, Combat Pistol Range (it might have had a number, I don't really rmember), back in 2008. Most service members don't ever shoot a pistol. Those that do qualify usually do so, at most, 2x a year, with a course of fire that rarely esceeds 50 rounds. This was not annual qualification, it was ADVANCED COMBAT PISTOL course. Everyone in the course was a SEAL, Recon Marine or Corpsman attached to them. We don't generally do annual training the way regualr military units do. With all the training we have to fit in, we would never have time. We do what is called Saturation training. We train very intensely for a period of time unitl those skills are ingrained into muscle memory.
Lastly, I resent your implied accusation that I was less that truthful. I am sorry that you didn't get to do all the shooting you wanted when (if) you were in the military. Some of us did, stop hating.

Certaindeaf

October 2, 2012, 11:25 PM

I remember we'd go through piles using those loader thingys and MP-5's and stuff but still, 40,000 rounds per in 10 days is quite a bit.
I think the most I shot in a day was 2,000 centerfire handgun but that certainly wasn't day in day out.
Fun times.

Old Dog

October 2, 2012, 11:40 PM

FMF doc: Not hating, dude, nor was I implying you were less than truthful, just asking the question. I retired at the end of '05 upon returning from my last OIF deployment (after 26 years to the day on active duty). And I have attended several "advanced" weapons courses, but had not previously heard of 4K pistol rounds per person per day for 10 days. Did not mean to offend you.

JohnKSa

October 3, 2012, 01:08 AM

40,000 rounds in 10 daysAssuming 8 hour days with no breaks, that's one round every 7.2 seconds. A sustained rate of fire of over 8 rounds a minute all day long. How many people were loading magazines for the shooters?

BullfrogKen

October 3, 2012, 01:22 AM

FMF Doc, I think you're mis-remembering the number of rounds you fired in that training evolution.

bassdogs

October 3, 2012, 11:02 AM

FMC Dude - The math here doesn't lie. I'll say it if others won't. It didn't happen like you described. Someone ask who was loading the mags, I'd ask who was setting the targets. Lots of holes and blown up silo targets after even half of that firepower down range.

But it really has little relevance to the initial question. Assuming someone could do a saturation training like you describe finding someone to supply the rounds and range or you could afford that kind of personal investment, I'd say you could probably master ping pong with your off side hand. In the real world, with real world practice time even at any reasonable extremes, you are still likely to do better with one platform over an other even if it is for no other reason than just personal preference. But my understanding of the mystery world of the SEALS as limited as it is, the training is for kill zones not bull eyes shooting. The original poster on this thread described what would qualify him as a very good if not excellent shooter with the glock or probably any handgun platform. Not sure what he really is hoping for.

And for the record, as an American and a USArmy vet thank you for your service and I stand in total respect for what the SEALS and other special forces have and can accomplish. Just saying, Keep it Real!!

tomrkba

October 3, 2012, 11:17 AM

You should be able to fire any modern semi-automatic handgun as well as any other. You are doing something wrong if you cannot do so.

Two days with an instructor will do wonders for your shooting. You cannot buy any gun, gear or gadget that will solve this problem for you. Choose one gun and attend a defensive handgun course. Practice the techniques from the course at home and on the range for three months. Then attend the next level course with the same instructor. Get back to us after that.

Don't take SouthNarc's ECQC class (DO attend ECQC if you want to learn about fighting and you will get some shooting tips) since the focus there is different than what you need. If anything, take a look at Todd Green's "Aim Fast, Hit Fast" class. You may need to work up to it; contact him and find out.

Vickers may be just what you need. He focuses heavily upon accuracy at speed.

I hear good things about Bob Vogel. His resume looks like he has the experience to get your shooting skills tuned up.

Tom Givens is another very good instructor.

Poke around, read the AAR's, maybe email them with a few questions, research them on the internet, and then attend.

Sam1911

October 3, 2012, 11:29 AM

You should be able to fire any handgun as well as any other.
Actually, that SHOULD be a physical impossibility. Something (probably several) about one gun will work a bit better for your hand size, hand strength, visual acuity, etc. than some other gun. It just HAS to.

You should be able to shoot just about any (reasonably well constructed) handgun to some minimum standard. But when you push beyond static targets and fixed distances, the ergonomics of one gun will clearly enable you to operate it to a higher or lower level of speed and accuracy than another.

Said more directly: If I take you through the 90 rd. IDPA "Classifier" standards match with a Glock 17, and then again with a S&W 5906, and then with a 9mm 1911, and then a SIG 226, and then with a Browning Hi-Power -- you are going to shoot 5 distinctly different scores, even though those are all fairly equivalent service handguns, firing the same cartridge.

Two days with an instructor will do wonders for your shooting. Now that IS a true statement.

But it won't make you shoot all handguns to the same level of speed and accuracy.

To put a fine point on it: If you think you can shoot all handguns equally well, you aren't challenging yourself enough to know what you can or can't do.

Certaindeaf

October 3, 2012, 12:12 PM

I attened an Advanced Combat Pistol course taught by a salty old Senior Cheif from the SEAL teams. I went there with another corpsman and couple of 1st Force Recon Marines. The course used the SEAL's MK 25 (aka: Sig 226 in 9mm). A couple of the Recon guys complained that the sig didn't feel as good as their custom 1911's they were accustomed to. The Senior walked right up and siad: "If you don't like the way it feels, shoot it until you do." After 10 days and 40K rounds a piece, we were all shooting the sigs like they were laserguns, cutting soup can size holes out of targets at up to 35 yds. If you get ENOUGH practice, you can learn to shoot anything, the very best do, just ask the SEALs.
Another thing, since you got all this exceptional training and were "shooting the sigs like they were laserguns, cutting soup can size holes out of targets at up to 35 yds", it just seems odd to me that you would start numerous threads wondering about what gun to get. That's just me though and no insult intended. It would seem to me that it would be a given/boon/no-brainer for you to use that weapon with which you are so intimately familiar.

Old Dog

October 3, 2012, 12:32 PM

You should be able to fire any modern semi-automatic handgun as well as any other. You are doing something wrong if you cannot do so.Jeepers, I must be doing something wrong then ... But, wow, we go from one extreme statement to another ... Well, I'll agree with this statement (bold mine) so long as we stipulate a very low standard.

Sam1911 countered tomrkba's position very well:
Said more directly: If I take you through the 90 rd. IDPA "Classifier" standards match with a Glock 17, and then again with a S&W 5906, and then with a 9mm 1911, and then a SIG 226, and then with a Browning Hi-Power -- you are going to shoot 5 distinctly different scores, even though those are all fairly equivalent service handguns, firing the same cartridge
Hey, I'll add in the S&W M&P-9, the H&K USP and the Beretta 92FS since we're talkin' full-size service pistols. Anyone want to come up to my home range and take this challenge with all these pistols? Then get back to the board and let the members know that we're just full of beans ...

Sam1911 also notedTo put a fine point on it: If you think you can shoot all handguns equally well, you aren't challenging yourself enough to know what you can or can't do. I'd add, if you think you can shoot all handguns equally well, you clearly don't have experience with enough different handguns and you probably don't have any competitive experience, nor have you ever had to regularly shoot to an established, meaningful standard.

BullfrogKen

October 3, 2012, 12:37 PM

tomrkba, I disagree with this statement, too.

You should be able to fire any modern semi-automatic handgun as well as any other. You are doing something wrong if you cannot do so.

As Sam1911 said, someone who is skilled in shooting a handgun will have the ability to pick up most anything and make it work to a minimum level of accuracy and speed. That minimum level might even be better than most shooter's best day on the range.

But when a shooter is pushing past minimum standards, rising through the levels of speed and accuracy and has become a threat to win at the highest levels of competition, you'll see them become quite particular about not only the handgun they'll use but even what's inside it.

I know of IPSC competitors who become very particular about not just the trigger weight, but the brand of sear spring and even the profile of it's bend.

You'll see many people at the top edge of performance do much better with one style of handgun over another. Gun fit means a lot. You might not see a big difference with an amateur shooter, but as someone improves you'll see it when they run a gun that doesn't fit them properly.

But that statement is on it's face not true when we simply consider that the action pistol sports separate guns into different divisions, knowing that some systems give a performance edge over others.

Anyway.

And I'm sure FMF Doc went through the training evolution he describes. I just disagree with the round count.

beatledog7

October 3, 2012, 12:44 PM

I had my Glock 22 before I had my steel-framed 9mm CZs and Baby Eagle in .45ACP; it was my first semi-auto. I shoot the Glock pretty well, but I have a TLR-2S on it in its HD role, and that really helps control muzzle flip and snappiness. The red point on the target doesn't hurt either.

I shoot the steel guns better. They feel better in my hand, I bring them on target more naturally, and I enjoy them more. And they're just more satisfying to own. I am no longer in the market for polymer pistols unless I someday decide to audition some for back-up CCW or go cheap on a truck pistol (likely a used Glock 22 or 23).

So to the OP, I'm keeping my G22 even though I'm not nuts about it and even though I shoot other guns better. It is brutally reliable, and I get hits with it. I have lots of Glock .40 magazines and lots of .40S&W rounds, and that's ideal for the scenarios we don't talk about on THR, even if I never carry it and never compete with it. I'm good enough with it as configured to make it highly effective in its intended role; no handgun I can think of suits the role better.

What more would I ask of it?

Certaindeaf

October 3, 2012, 12:46 PM

You should be able to fire any modern semi-automatic handgun as well as any other. You are doing something wrong if you cannot do so..
I kinda take issue with that as well, even after your "modern..." edit etc.

A long time ago, when I was pretty much a kid, we were shooting some little Colt .25 with just a groove sight. I could nail an empty pack of cigs at 15+ yards with that thing every time and everyone else had about a six foot group.
Could I shoot that thing as well as my PPC gun? uh, no. not even close
ergos is ergos though and that gun really wasn't up to the "ergos" of a target gun

9mmepiphany

October 3, 2012, 02:10 PM

As Sam1911 said, someone who is skilled in shooting a handgun will have the ability to pick up most anything and make it work to a minimum level of accuracy and speed. That minimum level might even be better than most shooter's best day on the range.

But when a shooter is pushing past minimum standards, rising through the levels of speed and accuracy and has become a threat to win at the highest levels of competition, you'll see them become quite particular about not only the handgun they'll use but even what's inside it.
..and we need look no further than the television show Top Shot. A lot of folks sneer at the top ranked shooters who seem to make an early exit on that show...and question their actual skill level...but I've known more than a couple of them and they are amazing shots (within their specialty)

And yet a generalist (Jay Lim) who used obsolete techniques...in which he was very practiced...was able to really push everyone in the house

Doc3402

October 3, 2012, 02:20 PM

You should be able to fire any modern semi-automatic handgun as well as any other. You are doing something wrong if you cannot do so.

If you fully accept and believe that I feel sorry for you. You obviously still haven't found the right gun. Keep trying. It's out there somewhere just waiting to make a believer out of you.

Just show off your pretty, well-manicured hands to the class after you clean up on a Bill Drill.

;)

You and I both know there are no secrets behind what it takes to gain a high level of skill and proficiency.

One must practice the right things, performing them the right way, and put in a lot of hard work. It's not easy, and doesn't come without serious focus and determination, but the formula behind it is pretty simple.

But yeah, the fact that some people can shoot certain handguns better than others ought to be so obvious as to not even need debate. And a very skilled shooter will perform so much better with a gun that fits him that even the casual observer will notice the difference in performance when he uses one that does not.

tomrkba

October 3, 2012, 03:33 PM

If you fully accept and believe that I feel sorry for you. You obviously still haven't found the right gun. Keep trying. It's out there somewhere just waiting to make a believer out of you.

This is all about mastering trigger control. Aiming is easy; it's keeping those sights in the zone where you need the hit while moving the trigger.

I qualified with with "modern" because I wanted the context to stay within the realm of what he can reasonably buy today.

One good method is to learn to shoot a gun with a heavy double action trigger. Revolvers, SIG P-Series, etc. If you can manage a long 10+ pound trigger to get good groups, then you're well on your way. The next step is to acquire speed with the the double action trigger. This requires a bit more study and practice.

Any trigger other than the long double action trigger will seem like a pleasant dream in comparison.

tomrkba

October 3, 2012, 03:35 PM

Actually, that SHOULD be a physical impossibility. Something (probably several) about one gun will work a bit better for your hand size, hand strength, visual acuity, etc. than some other gun. It just HAS to.

Yet again, the quibbling starts. If you want to consider tiny differences as significant, please do so. But, it's silly since we're not talking about competition. We're trying to get the guy proficient since it's obvious he is still learning.

I can nail 3" groups on demand with a SIG P-Series, 1911, Glock, M&P, CZ, etc. It's not that hard. When guys next to me at the NRA Range complain about "inaccurate" SIGs, I show them the trick. It's very satisfying to watch their group sizes go from 8-12" to 4-6" in just a few minutes. They need additional practice, but they get the idea. They see me shoot their gun and do well so they know it can be done. After that, they just work on it.

So, yes, the proficient shooter should be able to pick up any modern semi-auto and shoot well.

Doc3402

October 3, 2012, 03:55 PM

This is all about mastering trigger control. Aiming is easy; it's keeping those sights in the zone where you need the hit while moving the trigger.

I will agree with that part, but wouldn't you say that a grip that stays in the same part of your hand would make this easier than a grip that is constantly shifting? How about a grip that doesn't allow you to pull or push the gun with your trigger finger?

Yes, trigger control and flinch control are very important, and for someone that doesn't have a well fitting gun so is sight alignment. What I'm saying is that when you get the right gun you may as well shave the sights off.

The right gun is like a natural extension of your eyes. I've had it once. If I saw the target I hit the target. That was true from 7 yards waist level to 50 yards double action rest. I couldn't miss.

The gun came out of the holster with the same grip every single time. It aligned itself correctly every single time. Shooting the K5 at 50 yards was more of a thought process than an acquired skill. I truly hope you find it one day, but until you do I don't fault your thought process. I remember thinking like that before I got that one gun.

Man, I need a smoke and a nap.

BullfrogKen

October 3, 2012, 04:07 PM

But, it's silly since we're not talking about competition. We're trying to get the guy proficient since it's obvious he is still learning.

Actually, if you look at his posting history he is talking about shooting in terms of competitive, several rounds a second, action-pistol style shooting. And he's talking about the ability to do it running the gun at speed, not the bullseye style shooting you just described.

And I also disagree with your suggestion that he's still learning, and we're trying to get him proficient. Anyone who has shot over 40,000 rounds is no longer in the "still learning" phase of shooting. Actually at 40,000 rounds on one gun a shooter will form habits down to the unconscious level that he learned to be able to make that gun run well at speed. Some of those habits will transfer well to a different platform, some require a conscious period of "un-learning and re-learning" because the gun is different, and behaves differently when you run it at a level of high performance.

The OP is trying to take good performance to the next level.

So, yes, the proficient shooter should be able to pick up any modern semi-auto and shoot well.

Many of us already agreed that someone who is an overall skilled shooter can pick up most any gun and make it shoot well.

You're not quite getting the discussion. We're not talking about getting someone to just shoot well. This discussion is about finding why the OP is struggling with reaching a very high level of performance.

tomrkba

October 3, 2012, 04:10 PM

Grip is part of trigger control. They're all integrated. The reason is that trigger finger pressure affects how the other fingers and palms must respond. I see it all as a balancing act that is the same whether shooting slowly or quickly.

I have never had a gun feel like it's a natural extension of my eyes. Knowing my luck, that gun will be from Jimenez. I adapt to it. I figure out what it wants and do that.

It just seems odd to me that a guy can pick up a 1911 and shoot it but can't manage a Glock. That tells me he's been doing quite a bit of 1911 work and relying on the trigger to cover for his technical errors.

K...got it BullfrogKen.

9mmepiphany

October 3, 2012, 04:17 PM

Grip is part of trigger control. They're all integrated. The reason is that trigger finger pressure affects how the other fingers and palms must respond. I see it all as a balancing act that is the same whether shooting slowly or quickly.
Actually they shouldn't be, they should be completely independent.

Part of being a skilled shooter is separating the trigger management from the gripping forces acting on the gun

tomrkba

October 3, 2012, 04:23 PM

9mm,

I understand what you mean and hear it all the time.

Sam1911

October 3, 2012, 04:28 PM

Yet again, the quibbling starts. If you want to consider tiny differences as significant, please do so. But, it's silly since we're not talking about competition. We're trying to get the guy proficient since it's obvious he is still learning.
Really good shooters posting above-average scores tend to quibble over a great many small details. Whatever it takes to make the gun work most efficiently for you. Changing to a more advantageous weapon is usually one of the first steps on that process.

(Not to be confused with a neophyte floundering from gun to gun hoping to buy competence.)

I can nail 3" groups on demand with a SIG P-Series, 1911, Glock, M&P, CZ, etc. It's not that hard. When guys next to me at the NRA Range complain about "inaccurate" SIGs, I show them the trick. It's very satisfying to watch their group sizes go from 8-12" to 4-6" in just a few minutes. They need additional practice, but they get the idea. They see me shoot their gun and do well so they know it can be done. After that, they just work on it.Of course, but that's the basics. It seemed we'd long passed talking about marksmanship fundamentals and were concerned with how well you can run a gun once you've got your basic accuracy mechanics figured out.

We're trying to get the guy proficient since it's obvious he is still learning.In the sense that we're all still learning, sure. But not still learning grip, sight picture, and trigger control.

I've written before about what I see as distinct levels of ability, "competence, proficiency, and mastery." I'm seeing this discussion as more about the jump from proficiency to mastery and less about getting beyond basic competence.

Derek Zeanah

October 3, 2012, 04:29 PM

I voted "no," but I wasn't thinking about the fit of the gun, quality of the trigger, or any of that.

Specifically, a drop-free magazine will offer faster reload speed than a European-style magazine release. I don't care how many times you train a reload, it's just going to take more time.

(I am also quicker at reloading an AR than an M1A, and I don't know that you could train to be as fast with the M1A.)

coalman

October 4, 2012, 12:36 AM

I made it a non-Glock weekend last weekend and ran 800 rounds (9mm) through three Sigs (P226, P229R and P239), and about 800 rounds (.22lr) and 100 rounds (9mm) through my P229R yesterday. Not much different than reported here (e.g. more consistent POI centered around POA and fewer fliers) in action shooting.

The Sig reset is an adjustment in action shooting, and I'm not as proficient overall in action shooting drills (vs. the Glock 17), but know that both would take time. No final decision just yet, but increasingly a more open mind. Time will tell.

I appreciate those who took the time to actually read first and provide constructive comments second. Thanks.